[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

[Matthew Petach]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:05 AM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> John, we're on the same page here, I think.
>
> > I am not for or against the present approach, but want to understand
> > the community thinking on why enterprises should be prevented from doing
> > transfers and subject to architecture-specific constraints in order to
> > receive approval.
>
> No one participating in the RIR system should be prevented from doing any
> bona fide transfer.  In the 8.3 world, network operators must be free to
> buy
> and sell IP addresses as it fits their business plans.  If we can agree on
> that, can
> we agree that any mechanism which forces a company to do multiple transfers
> or buy multiple blocks is a disservice to the community?
>

I suspect the challenge here is that not everyone
is in agreement about what constitutes a
"bona fide" transfer, as opposed to a land
grab.  If we look at land allocations in california
as any indication, humans will warp and twist
any well-intentioned plan for their own greed
and profits.

I think at the heart of the matter is the question
of whether or not a potential IP monoculture
is allowed to develop, somewhat akin to the
broadband monoculture that is emerging in
the US.  One could happily point out that
eliminating all competition simply "fits their
business plan" -- but is that really best for
the community?

I don't think all business plans are created
equally, and don't think that that the simple
existence of a business plan should provide
carte blanche to do as one wishes.

I find myself still torn over using historical
data vs forward projections.  I agree that
historical data is flawed for new entrants;
but I've been the victim of horribly and
glaringly optimistic forward projections
as well.

I suspect over time I'll find myself coming
to the stance that, like other limited spectrum
resources, we may need to look at forward
projections with a periodic review, and the
ability to claw back mis-allocated resources
if the projections do not end up conforming
to the local space-time-continuum reality-curve.
(ie, if your projections were crack-smoking
fantasy, you may be denied renewal of your
assets, and they may be allocated to someone
else).

Still not quite firm enough yet to be at the
policy proposal stage, though--but watching
the debate is helping gel some ideas together.

Thanks!

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140922/02425128/attachment.htm>